Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25410110›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2014

QTLs associated with dry matter intake, metabolic mid-test weight, growth and feed efficiency have little overlap across 4 beef cattle studies.

Mahdi Saatchi, Jonathan E Beever, Jared E Decker, Dan B Faulkner, Harvey C Freetly, Stephanie L Hansen, Helen Yampara-Iquise, Kristen A Johnson, Stephen D Kachman, Monty S Kerley and 13 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Genome-wide association study of mature cow size traits in American Angus cattle.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Mahdi Saatchi
Jonathan E Beever
Jared E Decker
Dan B Faulkner
Harvey C Freetly
Stephanie L Hansen
Helen Yampara-Iquise
Kristen A Johnson
Stephen D Kachman
Monty S Kerley
JaeWoo Kim
Daniel D Loy
Elisa Marques
Holly L Neibergs
E John Pollak
Robert D Schnabel
Christopher M Seabury
Daniel W Shike
Warren M Snelling
Matthew L Spangler
Robert L Weaber
Dorian J GarrickDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames 50011, USA. dorian@iastate.edu.
Jeremy F Taylor
University of Missouri · USAgricultural Research Service · USIowa State University · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USUniversity of Nebraska–Lincoln · USWashington State University · USKansas State University · USMassey University · NZNeogen (United States) · USTexas A&M University · USUniversity of Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe identification of genetic markers associated with complex traits that are expensive to record such as feed intake or feed efficiency would allow these traits to be included in selection programs. To identify large-effect QTL, we performed a series of genome-wide association studies and functional analyses using 50 K and 770 K SNP genotypes scored in 5,133 animals from 4 independent beef cattle populations (Cycle VII, Angus, Hereford and Simmental×Angus) with phenotypes for average daily gain, dry matter intake, metabolic mid-test body weight and residual feed intake.

resultsA total of 5, 6, 11 and 10 significant QTL (defined as 1-Mb genome windows with Bonferroni-corrected P-value<0.05) were identified for average daily gain, dry matter intake, metabolic mid-test body weight and residual feed intake, respectively. The identified QTL were population-specific and had little overlap across the 4 populations. The pleiotropic or closely linked QTL on BTA 7 at 23 Mb identified in the Angus population harbours a promising candidate gene ACSL6 (acyl-CoA synthetase long-chain family member 6), and was the largest effect QTL associated with dry matter intake and mid-test body weight explaining 10.39% and 14.25% of the additive genetic variance, respectively. Pleiotropic or closely linked QTL associated with average daily gain and mid-test body weight were detected on BTA 6 at 38 Mb and BTA 7 at 93 Mb confirming previous reports. No QTL for residual feed intake explained more than 2.5% of the additive genetic variance in any population. Marker-based estimates of heritability ranged from 0.21 to 0.49 for residual feed intake across the 4 populations.

conclusionsThis GWAS study, which is the largest performed for feed efficiency and its component traits in beef cattle to date, identified several large-effect QTL that cumulatively explained a significant percentage of additive genetic variance within each population. Differences in the QTL identified among the different populations may be due to differences in power to detect QTL, environmental variation, or differences in the genetic architecture of trait variation among breeds. These results enhance our understanding of the biology of growth, feed intake and utilisation in beef cattle.

Indexed as

Animal FeedFeeding BehaviorMeatAnimalsBody WeightCattleFemaleGenetic PleiotropyGenomeGenome-Wide Association StudyGrowth and DevelopmentInheritance PatternsMaleQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID25410110
PMCPMC4253998
OpenAlexW2056147318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.